Gaming Quiz / EU Law

Random Gaming Quiz

Can you name the EU Cases?

Quiz not verified by Sporcle

Forced Order
Also try: Famous Miis
Challenge
Share
Tweet
Embed
Score 0/229 Timer 20:00
Point Case NameTrigger
Where it began...History
Still core constitutional text
No QMV if important 'national interest', unanimity only, pandering to De Gaulle
Year of 1st enlargement/UK joined
Year of second enlargement/IGC agreed draft const
a) Missed reluctance of citizens Ring my!
Replaces EC treaties/ends pillars/'not const'
a)language changed, substance remains
We need a 'federalist moment' today
New treaty 'inevitable'Institutions
Body that sets agenda
Proposes leg/executive/guardian of EU law
If 'ord leg proceed' it approves
Also aproves/1 minister per MS
p)No legal base? Can't actGENERAL PRINCIPLES of LAW
ECJ watchdog, internal market no justification
p) Defer to MS if you can
p) GPL - sledgehammer/nut
Legislation must be?
'do not exceed the limits of what is app'
MS consts 'best or most progressive'
Original position, not in Treaty so no. FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.
Turning point (human dignity)
EU inst are bound/FR are sourced from international treaties that MS sign toWHOSE BOUND. Emile
Such as the ECHR source so property is a FRLaughing jester, castle
MS are not bound by FR Cameo not quite right..
But, when 'implement EU rules' yes Wa the..
This one was outside EU laws and weak link to state. Phew dodged political bullet!
a)Lisbon increased ECJ fr jurisdictionsexless one..
EU FR above UN (asset-freezing)
ECtHR presume EU not infringing
ECJ looks to ECtHR those grunge years...
Supremacy! boom! (nationalising elec) SUPREMACY
a)only good arg efficacy, cororally to DE
Implications of Supremacy-efficacy/uniformity (maize deposit)
So set national law aside (Italy, beef)Isy steps aside..
Compromise,if u protect rightsGermany react
a) This shows the Dynamic relationship + German federalist anxietydynamic dufus
Supremacy, but different way.. UK
L) With sovereignty clause
EU 'in no event' supreme over const Not really a name..
a) shows that real power is bottom up
Treaty confers rights, 'spirit', articles have DE DIRECT EFFECT
Provided?
Not unconditional? It's ok (Dutchman-Bar)Train(ers) for the Bar.
Not SC? Reasonably ok. (m+w equal pay, HDE)Reasonable teenage witch (airline)
Article similar to 288 but read less striclty?
Regulations have DE (killed cows, subsidies)Da vinci and the trees
Decisions have DE (tax German company)Ex-student..
Directives have Direct effect. Situation not limited yet. DIRECTIVES (scientologist)
D's only have DE if TL has passed. Estoppel reasoning emerges(packaging)
Pre TL. MS don't leg against Directives.
Pre TL. NC don't interpret leg against DirectiveA child's hiding place
Indiv can rely on Dircetive rather than national law if its been implemented badly
But not HDE incompatible with 288. It's oK here though.(M/W over 60)
a) undermined by qualifications
Emanations of the state
The test is? 1
2
3
4
Vague 1st instance criticised, condition 2 isn't here
State organs must apply EU not national law/This includes regional organs
a) 'Administrative direct effect'
Indirect Effect duty (C1 prison/C2 private, both ok) INDIRECT EFFECT.
Strong obligation (even if nat law predates Directive/HDE situation)
But, don't aggravate criminal liability (+ obiter) criminal avocado
a) Obiter has meaning
a) No it doesn't
Or read contra legem (but defer to NC)Little dog
Consider whole legal system Bless you!
a) But Legitimate expectations ruined! Hypothetical situations.
a)What's the fuss? The obligations is only 'as far as possible'
Defined Incidental E/obligation to notify ignored (alarms)INCIDENTAL EFFECT
Only if products don't conform
Standstill obligation ignored/had to accept goods (olive oil)_versity
a) Commercial certainty is undermined, state failure meant forced to take goods
GPL even if pre-TL + HDE situation (age discrim)GPL (directive helped)
GPL in H situation (1 not 4 months notice)Clucking (about fired) Swedish
a) This is effective judicial protection of indiviuals FR
a) No, it raises questions of competence
AG Lenz pro HDE of D/MS pro SL
Its for NC to determine how EU rights are upheldSTATE LIABILITY. Bah Humbug!
But the remedies cannot be worse than national law (equivalence emerging)
For instance here interim relief must be possible
E and E properly establishedBlack as...
Consider 'purpose and characteristics' of national law to determine equivalencePenks' purpose
Leading case (bust company, non-imp of D that says pay)SL properly established
SL. Provided the RofL? (i)
(ii)
(iii)
Breach must be sufficiently serious. This is if there's a 'manifest and grave disregard'(german purity law)
a)any harder its redundant
Meaning possible, no caselaw on it, other MS confused so it's not SS (water procurement)
a) The above undermines Dori view that its panaceacopper elec pipes
Discretion here was over how, not when = SS.DILLegent, timely implementation
No discretion then 'mere infringement' is SS/breach by executive leads to SL Sheep's heed
PP breach can lead to SL. Competition law only, atm..
Breach by Supreme Courts will lead to SL but _ Richter
Leg can't say otherwiseSpag bol
Indeed, failure by any state organ to apply EU law may lead to SL
Commission/MS enforcement proceed art?ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS
Applies even if 'constitutionally independent'B's independent through gardening.
The reasoned opinion must be sufficientit will be sufficient pork (content)
Reciprocity - MS must co-operate and give infoI'll help... (content)
Reciprocity - Commission requests must be reasonable (5 days/40 years)
If it's not in the reasoned opinion it can't be raised in courtNEVER raised
Indiv no say in proceedings being brought
Commission have discretion about when to bring action
But they realise an inordinate delay can infringe defence rights
Public order defence works in theory, but violation of it would be extraordinary here MS defences.
Practical arguments don't work
Floodgates argument fails
MS intention irrelevent boot, stocking, what's your intention...
Alleged illegality of EU law no defence
Sanctions must be (i)
(ii)
(iii)
Can apply penalty and lump sum together
Lump sum is?
Non-imp of environment D/Liable for £6 mill/enforcement delay
Preliminary ruling article?PRELIMINARY RULING
ECJ can't give PR's on? (i)
or (ii)
Bingham: If in doubt pr/panoramic EXERCISE caution
You can PR if national law, still forestalls diffDrole..
No PR if 263 standing (Company had to repay state aid, Comm advised 263)Standing on textiles.
263 standing not obv so PR ok Ok, PR then, i don't want any ___
No nat court can declare EU law invalidDUTY to refer. Frosty...
OK, you can suspend for interim relief..
Provided that? (i)
(ii)
(iii)
All last instance courts under a duty to PR (on type of case)
But, theres no duty if its an identical question (Van Gen here)
Or just similar/Acte Clair (so obvs)not identical, bit it still fits.
1.Acte clair condition
a) that's not onerous
AG, yes it is
2.AC condition
3.AC condition
UK case=criteria rolled up w clarityRolled up in the country
a) 'give and take', voluntary dispence but then restrict.
Case outlines factors for courtNO DUTY
1. Whether the body is..
This was a private contract rather than law so not a court... northern,french world
2. whether it is...
3. whether its
4. whether it...
5. And if it is sufficiently..
This one wasn't
e.g of test, dutch appeals committee, private but a court
Lower court? Then follow ECJ not your supreme court, inroad on national const
Lower court? Wide discretion (no nat law preventing PR)
But (i) not fabricated PR (carrier tax)Lalonde in foggy aberdeen, Maria's fabric.
a) This precondition is 'slipperly slope'Can't tell parties intention
a) No, ECJ should determine their jurisdictionTreating them as PP ensures this
(ii) or hypothetical (bank shares, challenge tax)wine, tax debates...
(iii) Or PR too fragmentary in complex comp area.Complex circus competition!
Indeed, NC should estab facts+national law first.
But, ECJ will sometimes extract the question Esp if to create supremacy
Conflicting national law must be set asideStep aside old man...
Article for annulment?ACTION FOR ANULLMENT
Within how long?
Reviewable acts about substance, not form
Article for omissions too?
Privileged. Not EP at first.
Then semi.
Now fully privileged, its in...
Non-privileged, odd thing in 263...
Rep bodies? Negotiations evidence of individualaddressed/each indiv/sum direct and indiv
No special status for environmental orgsMust fulfil the same test
DC here. Regul limits apple imports,comm not MS decideDirect Concern - Holiday three...
TA Directive, grants discretion so not directLizard like...
But here Directive ok, discretion only theoretical
'Particular attributes or circumstances' (clementines)Indiv Concern
Pre-existing contracts indiv concerned (Greek cotton)Spicy cotton!
More liberal categories (i)Liberal
E.g. here indiv concern as big company
(ii)
(iii)
More liberal generally? (allowed challenge to regulation)'Crement'
No, that's a one-off restricted here(waste transporters F-G, but others may)
AG wants liberal? Case below
Not followed.indiv can PR,MS must grant remedy
ECJ:Followed above,CFI doesn'tCFI:def+imm, obligations (potential app no matter)
Agrees 'desirable' but usurps founding fathersDesirable dancing!
QR and MEE. 'Common foundation for economic devlopmnt' QR + MEE
'Hard practical fact' no frontiers
Art:Union shall establish internal market
Art:No 'internal frontiers'
Art:Applies to 3rd countries
Case:Applies to 3rd countries
Art:So customs duties etc are banned
Arts:And QR and MEE on imports/exports
QR's are 'total/partial restriction of goods in transit'
MEEs hinder trade direct,indirect,actual,potential
Council refused tender that didn't comply. MEE.DISCRIMINATORY
Korean leprechaun must say origin, MEENot justified under 26 consumer protection
3% bump, non-binding measures, still MEEGoods council funded by state/dont cryst
Inspection of milk imports are MEE/mere formality no defencemust be law and practice
Not MEE as promo so so specificLevies paid to state, so state 'underpinning'
necc and prop (Beef inspections an MEE)ART 36 Exhaustive justifications
Blockade, Delay and rots,state omission,no resources not justif
blockade, justified here - state limited space and timetruckers and burgers/environment
MS right to define non-economic interests recognised. This is under 36UK horse racing, porn, weird
MS determine public morality, but here 'markedly different' so not ok
Public security defence ok here, state refinery
Liqueur 25% in Germany, this is less.Its an MEE.INDISTINCTLY APPLICABLE MEASURES
p) Presumption of legality. Comply there=ok everywhere
p)justified if necc and prop. Non-exhaustive requirements
Drinks in reusable packet, MEE but justifiedDad recycles..
No beer with additives. MEE. Unjustified could label.
Sunday trading In 34 but ok under CassisSCOPE of 34
videos pre-cinema not ok,in 34 but justifiedCameo..
No bakery at night, outside 34 (characteristics)
Selling not product. All ok in law+fact then outside 34Attempt to limit...
Not in 34 if? (i)
(ii)
Word banned,product,34, not in CassisPRODUCT/SELLING
10% free,half bar,misleading,product, 34, not ok in Cassis(germany)
No trailers,affects use=product, 34, justified safety,proportionate outlined
Mags no prizes,product,Cassis,RofR, NPA
Sunday trading (now) outside 34. Same in Law + Fact.LAW/FACT (Sunday,boats,spanish house)
Sell baby milk in pharmacies only,origin neutral,outside 34Milk is Grrreeat!
Petrol company, no tv ads allowed, everyone in L+F beyond 34
AG in above (i) selling may restrict (booze) (ii) fact test=discrimination test, allows arbitrarinessAccess to market test
Swedish ban on ads to children under 12, this may be diff in fact as access to market, leave to NCLeaning towards AG.
No booze adverts in mags,booze customary to Sweden so diff in factvery good food...

You're not logged in!

Compare scores with friends on all Sporcle quizzes.
Sign Up with Email
OR
Log In

You Might Also Like...

Show Comments

Extras

Top Quizzes Today


Score Distribution

Your Account Isn't Verified!

In order to create a playlist on Sporcle, you need to verify the email address you used during registration. Go to your Sporcle Settings to finish the process.